berrima colliery environmental performance monitoring ... · berrima colliery environmental...

Berrima Colliery

Environmental Performance Monitoring

Aquatic Ecology

Prepared for Boral Cement Limited 24 January 2019

Document control

Project number Client Project manager LGA

4555 Boral cement Limited Matthew Russell Wollondilly

Version Author Review Status Date

D1 Matthew Russell Lucy Porter and Simon Tweed Draft 13 December 2018

Rev1 Matthew Russell David Spears/Boral Final 24 January 2018

Berrima Colliery Environmental Performance Monitoring Aquatic Ecology i

Executive summary _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Berrima Colliery is an underground coal mine located at Medway in the NSW Southern Highlands. The

mine operated continually from 1926 until October 2013, when it was placed on care and maintenance,

pending full closure. Boral Cement Limited (Boral) is preparing the mine for full closure and is responding to

issues by regulators before a final closure plan can be approved. Specifically the Berrima Colliery was

required to address mine water discharge into Wingecarribee River.

Special Condition 8 of Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) 608, requires Berrima Colliery to develop and

implement an action plan to prevent, control, abate and mitigate pollution to the Wingecarribee. Condition

E3.1 requires the colliery to prepare a Performance Monitoring Program to monitor the performance of the

water treatment works implemented and specifies aquatic ecological monitoring as a component of the

program. Consequently, Niche Environment and Heritage (Niche) were engaged by Boral to conduct aquatic

monitoring at Berrima Colliery.

The purpose of this aquatic study is:

To assess the gradient changes in composition and abundance of in-stream biota downstream of Berrima Colliery's adit discharge to the Wingecarribee River.

To assess changes over time, following the installation of the water treatment system.

The survey used standard quantitative macroinvertebrate dip-net sampling in accordance with the License

Conditions at five impact monitoring sites downstream and two reference sites upstream of the mine water

discharge and at Medway Rivulet tributary. The indicators used for statistical analysis included

macroinvertebrate Family Richness, EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) Richness, %EPT and

macroinvertebrate community data.

The following conclusions were made:

In general, impacts from discharge were observed downstream at Site 3 (300m downstream) and Site 4

(1000m downstream) in all three survey periods (March, June and September 2018) with no obvious

impacts at sites further downstream. Impacts included: reduction in abundance, taxonomic richness and

EPT, and change in macroinvertebrate assemblage structure. There were some small improvements in EPT,

taxonomic richness at Site 3 and 4 in September 2018 and became more similar to reference sites. However

this is difficult to relate to any improvements due to water quality treatment. Improvements in water

quality were offset by extensive low flows of the Wingecarribee River and associated water quality. Iron

precipitate is the likely mechanism affecting macroinvertebrates, and was the most improved parameter

observed within the mine after improvements in water treatment practices. With the longer term

implementation of these measures it is likely that further improvements will be measurable in future

monitoring.

Berrima Colliery Environmental Performance Monitoring Aquatic Ecology ii

Glossary and list of abbreviations _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Term or abbreviation Definition

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council.

AUSRIVAS Australian Rivers Assessment System.

Adit A horizontal passage leading into a mine for the purposes of access or

drainage.

Drift The passive dispersal of the larvae of invertebrates living in rivers,

EPT Index Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera index – total count of the different

taxa with in these orders

% EPT Total EPT counts divided by the abundance of all individuals

Eco toxicity Refers to the potential for biological, chemical or physical stressors to affect

ecosystems.

Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates are animals without a backbone that can be seen with

the naked eye.

SIGNAL Stream Invertebrate Grade Number Average Level.

Berrima Colliery Environmental Performance Monitoring Aquatic Ecology iii

Table of Contents _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. i

Glossary and list of abbreviations ........................................................................................................... ii

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Environmental Protection License conditions ............................................................................... 1

1.3 Wingecarribee River and mine water discharge ........................................................................... 2

1.4 Aquatic ecology - 2017 monitoring ............................................................................................... 3

2. Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Sampling location and study design .............................................................................................. 4

2.2 Survey methods ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Data analysis .................................................................................................................................. 7

3. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Hydrology....................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................................................................... 9

4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 19

5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 21

References ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Annex 1 – Pairwise tests ....................................................................................................................... 24

Annex 2 –Simper .................................................................................................................................. 29

Annex 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 32

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of survey sites ...................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: River flow at Wingecarribee River - Medway and V-notch weir (January 2018 - October 2018) ...... 9

Figure 3 Mean (±SE) Taxa richness - Sites within season. ............................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Scatter plot regression - taxonomic richness/distance from discharge ........................................... 11

Figure 6 Mean (±SE) Abundance – Sites. ......................................................................................................... 12

Figure 7 Mean (±SE) Abundance at all sites combined – Survey period ......................................................... 12

Figure 8 Scatter plot regression - abundance/distance from discharge. ........................................................ 13

Berrima Colliery Environmental Performance Monitoring Aquatic Ecology iv

Figure 9 Mean (±SE) %EPT - Sites within season. ............................................................................................ 14

Figure 10: Scatter plot regression - %EPT/distance from discharge. .............................................................. 15

Figure 11 Mean (±SE) EPT – Sites. ................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 12 Mean (±SE) EPT – Survey. ................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 13: Scatter plot regression - EPT/distance from discharge. ................................................................. 17

Figure 14 MDS plot of centroids. Black line denotes group, arrows denote general trajectory through Survey

period. ............................................................................................................................................................. 18

List of Plates

Plate 1: Field survey method – dip netting........................................................................................................ 6

Plate 2: Iron precipitate downstream of adit .................................................................................................. 19

List of Tables

Table 1: E3.1 Performance Monitoring Program – aquatic ecology ................................................................. 1

Table 2: Location of macroinvertebrate sampling sites .................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Regression results -Taxonomic richness .............................................................................................. 9

Table 4: PERMANOVA table of results -Taxonomic richness........................................................................... 10

Table 5: Regression results – Abundance. ....................................................................................................... 11

Table 6: PERMANOVA table of results -Abundance ........................................................................................ 13

Table 7: Regression results -%EPT ................................................................................................................... 13

Table 8: PERMANOVA table of results -%EPT .................................................................................................. 14

Table 9: Regression results -EPT ...................................................................................................................... 15

Table 10: PERMANOVA table of results - EPT.................................................................................................. 16

Berrima Colliery Environmental Performance Monitoring Aquatic Ecology 1

1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.1 Background

The Berrima Colliery is an underground coal mine located at Medway in the NSW Southern Highlands. The

mine operated continually from 1926 until October 2013, when it was placed on care and maintenance,

pending full closure. Boral Cement Limited (Boral) is preparing the mine for full closure and is responding to

issues by regulators before a final closure plan can be approved. Specifically the Berrima Colliery was

required to address mine water discharge into Wingecarribee River.

Special Condition 8 of Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) 608, requires Berrima Colliery to develop and

implement an action plan to prevent, control, abate and mitigate pollution to the Wingecarribee. Condition

E3.1 requires the colliery to prepare a Performance Monitoring Program to monitor the performance of the

water treatment works implemented and specifies aquatic ecological monitoring as a component of the

program.

1.1.1 Purpose and objectives of this report

Niche Environment & Heritage (Niche) have been commissioned by Boral to conduct an aquatic ecological

monitoring program to examine the stream health downstream of the mine water discharge in the

Wingecarribee River and compare it to reference sites to assess the improvements to stream health after

the implementation of water treatment measures.

The purpose of this aquatic study is:

To assess the gradient changes in composition and abundance of in-stream biota downstream of Berrima Colliery's adit discharge to the Wingecarribee River.

To assess changes over time following the installation of the water treatment system.

1.2 Environmental Protection License conditions

Licence conditions relating to aquatic ecological monitoring (Section E3.1 of Berrima Colliery’s EPL) are

listed in Table 1 below and addressed in this report. Water quality monitoring and analysis was undertaken

by International Environmental Consultants. This report focusses primarily on aquatic ecology components

of the program.

Table 1: E3.1 Performance Monitoring Program – aquatic ecology

Parameter Requirement

Project objective To assess the gradient changes in composition and abundance of in-stream biota downstream of Berrima Colliery's adit discharge to the Wingecarribee River.

To assess changes over time following installation of the water treatment system.

Hypothesis That the abundance and composition of aquatic biota will become more similar to reference sites following commissioning of the required water treatment project.

A specific bio-indicator target is for % EPT at sites downstream of the discharge (Point 4, 5 and 6) to be statistically similar to reference sites.

The EPT index is used to calculate the relative abundance of pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera Orders. (Wright & Ryan 2016).

Quantitative

macroinvertebrate

sampling and

analysis

Representative macroinvertebrate monitoring should be carried out following the methods (taxon level, sampling method) used by the University of Western Sydney in the study area (Dr Ian Wright).

Monitoring frequency:


1.3 Wingecarribee River and mine water discharge

The Wingecarribee River is a highly regulated system with three water supply structures and many farm

dams which starve the river of natural water flow. The mine discharges into the Wingecarribee River

approximately 1.8 km above the confluence with Medway Rivulet with mining operations ongoing for at

least 88 years. Upstream, the river is regulated by Wingecarribee Reservoir which provides a limited base

flow to the stream. As a result, the water flow upstream of the mine reduces substantially during low

rainfall periods (IEC 2015).

A small but regular base flow is provided by the mine water discharge (average 2.7 ML/day) to which the

downstream environment has adapted (IEC 2015). Further downstream the flow regime becomes

progressively more natural as more tributaries feed the system (IEC 2015) before its confluence with the

Wollondilly River which ultimately flows into Lake Burragorang (Warragamba Dam). Monitoring undertaken

at various locations downstream of the adit (licenced discharge point) shows that there has been an

increase in electrical conductivity and concentrations of metals such as iron, manganese, nickel and zinc

since mid-2016 (IEC 2016). Despite some moderate reductions in metal concentrations since water

treatment, levels have remained elevated compared to historical levels.

1.3.1 Summary of water treatment measures (from Boral 2018)

The underground treatment system seeks to emulate the original underground water management system

within the confines of the non-flooded mine workings. When operating, underground water was collected at

several points within the mine and either pumped or allowed to gravity flow into a large sump at the lowest

point in the mine (400 Panel Main Sump). From here the water was pumped into the 4a/4b Sump, then K

Mart Sump then finally the Pit Bottom Sump. From here the water overflowed into the old mine workings

and discharged into the Wingecarribee River at the licensed discharge point via the drain adit.

The mine water would generally travel up to 4 km underground and passed through at least 3 separate

aeration and settlement processes prior to discharge. Aeration was provided by pumping and gravity

feeding the water along channels. This process also maintained the pH at or slightly above neutral while the

large sumps provided time for settlement. This process was able to remove the majority of iron and a

proportion of manganese and other minerals from the water prior to discharge.

As part of the closure process, the first three underground sumps were allowed to flood and are no longer

accessible. Only the Pit Bottom Sump and the remaining dry mine workings can be utilised. The current

underground treatment system involves pumping from the edge of the flooded workings along 400 Panel to

3 North Panel where it is passed through a limestone bed and weir arrangement to increase pH. The water

then passes through old workings into the Pit Bottom Sump for settlement prior to discharge via the Drain

Quarterly during 2018 or 3 samples with two in the first half of 2018 Autumn, Spring/Summer 2019.

Monitoring should reasonably coincide with water quality monitoring.

Sampling design The sampling design consists of three treatment groups:

Discharge Monitoring Site (near) (5 sites - 1, 3, 4, 5, 7) which capture the gradient from the discharge water

Discharge Monitoring Site (far) (Site 8), this site is not directly associated with the discharge monitoring sites gradient but are used for comparison with ANZECC trigger values.

Reference (sites) — upstream (Site 2) and Medway Rivulet (Site 8) or as otherwise agreed

Statistical design Recognised statistical methods should be used to test for differences in abundance and richness between treatments and in gradient analysis.


Adit. The use of limestone and active aeration is necessary given the much smaller available area

underground compare to the original water management system. (Boral 2018).

1.3.2 Water quality monitoring - 2018

The underground treatment system commenced in late January 2018 and the following changes were

observed from the treatment of mine water (Boral 2018):

Increase of 0.5 pH units (i.e. towards pH neutral)

Improved dissolved oxygen concentration

Reduction in electrical conductivity

Significant reduction in dissolved iron concentration

Reduced concentrations of manganese, nickel and zinc.

The Wingecarribee River ambient monitoring showed a slight improvement in water quality, however it

was concluded that any improvement to the river in mine water discharge may be diminished by poorer

water quality associated with exceptionally dry conditions and low river flow concentrating the mine water

discharge.

1.4 Aquatic ecology - 2017 monitoring

Ecological monitoring conducted by Dr Ian Wright in February 2017 (Wright et al. 2018) and by Niche in

spring 2017made the following conclusions:

Below the mixing zone (> 6km downstream: Site 8 Biloela) in the Wingecarribee River were in good health, and as indicated by AUSRIVAS assessment, consist of macroinvertebrate fauna which would be expected to occur in a natural stream (Niche 2018).

There is a marked change in macroinvertebrate communities 100-200m downstream of the mine water discharge, with reduction of family richness, density, reduction in sensitive fauna (Niche 2018; Wright et al 2018) and an increase in site variability compared to the site sampled upstream of the discharge (Niche 2018).

There was a reduction in EPT indices (Niche 2018; Wright et al 2018) at 100-200m downstream of the discharge. EPT richness increased at 500m downstream (Niche 2018).

There was a modest recovery of stream fauna 500m downstream of the mine water discharge with an increase in density, richness and sensitive families (Niche 2018).

The deposition of iron precipitate within the Wingecarribee River downstream of the mine water discharge is possibly the predominant factor affecting macroinvertebrates immediately downstream of the discharge (Niche 2018).


2. Methods _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.1 Sampling location and study design

Sites were sampled at the locations as specified in the EPL licence 608 (Table 1). With five impact

monitoring sites located downstream of the mine adit, two reference sites upstream in Wingecarribee River

and a third reference site in Medway Rivulet. The purpose of the Medway Rivulet site is to determine

background ecological condition without the impacts of other activities upstream of the mine discharge

such as effluent from the sewage treatment plants and runoff from agricultural land and urban areas.

Downstream quantitative samples were compared to the upstream sites and longitudinal changes

downstream of the mine water discharge were assessed to determine any improvement in stream health.

The sites were also compared through time.

Table 2: Location of macroinvertebrate sampling sites

Site Number Location Easting Northing

1. Impact (no

samples)

V-notch weir (discharge) 248467 6180374

2. Reference 100m upstream of LDP1 (adit) in the

Wingecarribee River (WR - reference)

248562 6180151

3. Impact ~300m downstream of the confluence

(WR)

247983 6180264

4. Impact 1 km downstream of the confluence

(WR)

247197 6180447

5. Impact 2 km downstream but upstream of the

confluence with Medway Creek (WR)

246650 6179795

6. Reference Medway Creek 247123 6179596

7. Impact 3 km downstream of the confluence

(WR)

246909 6181028

8. Impact Biloela camping ground - 6km

downstream of the confluence (WR)

244988 6181683

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MEDWAY RIVULET

WELLSCR

EEKLONGACRE CREEK

PLA NT ING SPADE CREEK

WINGECARRIBEE RIVER

BOWMANS CREEK

BELA

NGLOCREEK

JACKEY JACKEYS CREEK

MORRIC

E CRE

EK

KNAPSACK GULLY

OLDBURY CREEK

12

3

6

7

8

4

5

245409 246409 247409 248409 24940961

7763

261

7863

261

7963

261

8063

261

8163

261

8263

261

8363

2

public/NSW_Imagery: © Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018

0 600

mGDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Berrima CollieryEnvironmental Performance Monitoring

Aquatic Ecology

Figure 1Niche PM: Matthew RussellNiche Proj. #: 4555Client: Boral Cement Limited

Draw

n by:

Matt H

arris

File:

T:\sp

atial\

projec

ts\a4

500\a

4555

_Berr

ima_

Collie

ry_AQ

\Map

s\rep

ort\45

55_F

igure_

1_Su

rveyS

ites.m

xd La

st up

dated

: 23-J

an-19

3:32

:36 PM

!( Impact

!( Reference

Non Perennial StreamPerennial Stream

v2.0


2.2 Survey methods

The project area was investigated by Niche Aquatic Ecologists in autumn 2018 on two occasions and spring

2018 on one occasion in accordance with the EPL conditions. The survey method used a quantitative dip

net method as prescribed by the licence.

2.2.1 Quantitative dip net sampling

Quantitative sampling was undertaken using methods previous conducted in studies on mine water

impacts in the Wingecarribee River and other mine water discharges in the southern coal fields (Wright et

al. 2018; Wright and Burgin 2009). Quantitative sampling included a timed (1 minute) dip net sampling of

flowing water/riffle habitat. This involved disturbing the substrate upstream of the dip net with the feet at

a random locations within the riffle habitat. Five subsamples/replicates samples were taken at each site.

Each sample was preserved in the field in a 500ml plastic jar and taken to the laboratory for processing.

Plate 1: Field survey method – dip netting

2.2.2 Laboratory methods

Quantitative samples were processed in the laboratory. Samples were placed on to a sorting tray. All

macroinvertebrates were picked under a magnifying lamp and placed into a labelled jar containing 70%

ethanol.

Macroinvertebrate samples were identified to family level with the exception of Oligochaeta (to class),

Polychaeta (to class), Ostracoda (to subclass), Nematoda (to phylum), Nemertea (to phylum), Acarina (to

order) and Chironomidae (to subfamily). Identification keys used include:

Dean, J., Rosalind, M., St Clair, M., and Cartwright, D. (2004) Identification keys to Australian families and genera of caddis-fly larvae (Trichoptera) Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology.

Gooderham, J. and Tsyrlin, E. (2002). The Waterbug Book: A guide to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Temperate Australia, CSIRO Publishing.

Hawking J. and Theischinger G. (1999). A guide to the identification of larvae of Australian families and to the identification of ecology of larvae from NSW.

Madden, C. (2010) Key to genera of Australian Chironomidae. Museum Victoria Science Reports 12,1-31.


Madden, C. (2011) Draft identification key to families of Diptera larvae of Australian inland waters La Trobe University.

Smith, B. (1996) Identification keys to the families and genera of bivalve and gastropod molluscs found in Australian inland waters Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre.

Website - http://www.mdfrc.org.au/bugguide/.

2.3 Data analysis

Multivariate and univariate analysis of family level macroinvertebrate community data collected from the

Wingecarribee River was conducted to investigate the ecological response to water quality mitigation

measures implemented by the colliery.

2.3.1 Univariate Analysis

Univariate analysis was performed on the following assemblage indices:

Taxonomic richness - the count of different families present in a region or ecological environment. A higher richness is indicative of good stream health.

Abundance – number of individuals.

% EPT - the number of EPT individuals divided by the total number of individuals in the sample.

EPT index - Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Tricoptera (EPT) index is based on the insect orders that contain a majority of pollution sensitive taxa (Lenat 1988). All family of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Tricoptera will be identified and then the number of distinct taxa counted as an indicator of ecosystem health - the higher the number the healthier the aquatic ecosystem.

The analysis was conducted to determine if sites downstream of the discharge are statistically similar to

reference sites. The PERMANOVA (Permutational Analysis of Variance) procedure in PERMANOVA+ for

Primer statistical software package (Anderson et al 2008) was used. A two factor (Survey and Site) fixed

design was used to explore differences between sites and surveys using the Euclidean distance matrix. For

pairwise comparisons where unique permutations were less than 100, a permutational P value was

adopted by applying the Monte Carlo boot strapping procedure to increase possible permutations

(Anderson et al 2008).

Regression analysis was used to determine the strength and significance of any linear relationships of

taxonomic diversity, abundance, and EPT with distance from the discharge point. The data analysis was

performed using the data analysis add-in in the Microsoft Excel Software package. Regression analysis was

run separately for each survey and trends were compared graphically to the reference sites.

2.3.2 Multivariate Analysis

Multivariate analysis was performed on the macroinvertebrate assemblage data using the PERMANOVA+

for Primer statistical software package (Anderson et al 2008). The analysis was based on Bray-Curtis

similarities computed from (transformed) species abundance values. The data was transformed using the

fourth-root function to normalise the distribution of the data. A two factor (Survey and Site) crossed

ANOSIM (Analysis of Similarity) routine was used to test the significance of dissimilarity between groups,

and to explore if sites downstream of the discharge are statistically similar to reference sites. The ANOSIM

procedure is a non-parametric statistical procedure using Bray-Curtis dissimilarities and a test statistic (R)

based on the difference between the average of all the rank dissimilarities between objects (Quinn and

Keough 2002). The R statistic provides a comparative measure of the degree of separation of sites, with

values closer to 1 indicating sites are most dissimilar, while those closer to zero indicate sites are similar

(Clarke and Warwick 2001). This procedure tests the null hypothesis that the similarity between groups is

greater than or equal to the similarity within the groups. Where the null hypothesis is rejected

http://www.mdfrc.org.au/bugguide/


(Significance level <0.05), the ANOSIM routine can then be used to explore the strength of dissimilarity (R

Statistic) between the reference and impact sites (downstream sites) and identify the reference site with

most similarity to the impact sites for benchmarking. A two-way crossed Simper analysis was performed to

determine the fauna contributing to significant differences identified within the ANOSIM.

Non-metric MDS (Multi-Dimensional Scaling) was also performed using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarities on

both the entirety of the assemblage data and the centroids calculated from this data (Anderson et al 2008).

This procedure was used to visualise dispersion and changes amongst sites and between the different

surveys, visualise similarity between assemblages, and identify if decreasing separation between the

reference and downstream sites was evident. For MDS plots using the full data set vector overlays based on

Spearman correlations with coefficients greater than 0.6 were added to the graphical display to identify

taxa most responsible for the differences in the assemblage.


3. Results_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.1 Hydrology

Hydrological data was sourced from the Wingecarribee River MacArthur’s Crossing (upstream of adit) and

the V-notch weir at the adit (Boral 2018). The hydrograph shows generally low flow (an average daily flow

of 8.9 ML/day) with one minor flow event in February 2018 (Figure 2). It is clear that on occasions the mine

water has provided the majority of daily flow to Wingecarribee River and overall contributed to

approximately 30% of the annual daily flow in 2018.

Figure 2: River flow at Wingecarribee River - Medway and V-notch weir (January 2018 - October 2018)

3.2 Macroinvertebrates

3.2.1 Taxonomic richness

Taxonomic richness was typically lower than reference sites at sites within 1000m of the discharge, with

levels of taxonomic richness becoming more similar to the reference sites in the most recent (last) survey

during September (Figure 3, Figure 4). Furthermore, sites downstream had similar or greater taxonomic

richness than the reference tributary (Figure 4). A positive linear relationship (increasing) of moderate

strength for taxonomic richness with distance was detected and found to be significant in June 2018.

However these linear relationships were not significant during other surveys (Figure 4, Table 3).

Comparisons between Sites, within Surveys, found Site 3 to have less taxa (average 8.6) compared to both

reference sites (Site 2 (13.8) and Site 6 (18.6)) (Annex 1). Further analysis of differences between surveys

and sites for taxonomic richness detected a significant interaction (Survey X Site) (Table 4, Figure 3).

Pairwise tests showed significant differences between both upstream reference sites and Site 3 (300m

downstream) for March and September; and the tributary reference site only in June. Other sites that

showed significant difference to upstream reference sites include Site 8 Biloela (6000m downstream) in

March and Site 4 (1000m downstream) in June (Annex 1).

Table 3: Regression results -Taxonomic richness

Group R Square Significance F

March 0.040 0.338

June 0.3925 0.0008

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

01

-Jan

-18

15

-Jan

-18

29

-Jan

-18

12

-Fe

b-1

8

26

-Fe

b-1

8

12

-Mar

-18

26

-Mar

-18

09

-Ap

r-1

8

23

-Ap

r-1

8

07

-May

-18

21

-May

-18

04

-Ju

n-1

8

18

-Ju

n-1

8

02

-Ju

l-1

8

16

-Ju

l-1

8

30

-Ju

l-1

8

13

-Au

g-1

8

27

-Au

g-1

8

10

-Se

p-1

8

24

-Se

p-1

8

08

-Oct

-18

22

-Oct

-18

05

-No

v-1

8

19

-No

v-1

8

03

-Dec

-18

Flo

w (

ML/

d)

V-notch Weir Macarthurs Crossing


September 0.1075 0.1094

Figure 3 Mean (±SE) Taxa richness - Sites within season.

Table 4: PERMANOVA table of results -Taxonomic richness

Source Degrees of

Freedom

Sum of squares Mean Square Pseudo-F P(perm) Unique

perms

Survey 2 573.49 286.74 24.498 0.0001 9944

Site 6 1188.9 198.14 16.928 0.0001 9958

Survey X Site 12 387.31 32.276 2.7575 0.0032 9930

Residual 84 983.2 11.705

Total 104 3132.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Site 2 Site 6 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 7 Site 8

Taxo

no

mic

ric

hes

s

Mar-18 Jun-18 Sep-18


Figure 4: Scatter plot regression - taxonomic richness/distance from discharge

3.2.2 Abundance

Abundance downstream of the discharge typically increased with distance downstream and was lower than

reference sites (Figure 5). There was an increase in overall abundance at impact sites in the September

survey (Figure 6) compared with previous seasons. A positive linear relationship (increasing) of weak -

moderate strength for abundance with distance was detected and found to be significant in all surveys

(Table 5, Figure 7). Abundance was statistically significant for both the Survey and Site factors (Table 6).

Pairwise tests showed significant difference between March, June and September sampling surveys,

irrespective of site. Site pairwise tests showed significant differences between the upstream reference site

(Site2) and Sites 3 and 4 (300 and 1000m); and between the tributary upstream reference site (Site 6) and

sites to 3000m downstream (Sites 3,4,5 and 7) irrespective of survey (Annex 1). Reference sites had higher

average abundances (Site 2: 229.20, Site 6: 330.93) which were significantly different from two

downstream sites (Site 3: 300m -44.93, Site 4: 1000m-106.8).

Table 5: Regression results – Abundance.

Survey R Square Significance F

March 0.315 0.004

June 0.5037 0.000071

September 0.2968 0.0048

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Taxo

no

mic

Ric

hn

ess

Distance from Discharge (m)

March

June

September

Ref - upstream

Ref - Tributary


Figure 5 Mean (±SE) Abundance – Sites.

Figure 6 Mean (±SE) Abundance at all sites combined – Survey period

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

site 2 Site 6 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 7 Site 8

Ab

un

dan

ce

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00


Ab

un

dan

ce


Table 6: PERMANOVA table of results -Abundance

Source Degrees of

Freedom


perms

Survey 2 6.5459E5 3.2729E5 20.537 0.0001 9952

Site 6 8.2996E5 1.3833E5 8.6795 0.0001 9926

Survey X Site 12 2.4778E5 20648 1.2956 0.2325 9946

Residual 84 1.3387E6 15937

Total 104 3.071E6

Figure 7 Scatter plot regression - abundance/distance from discharge.

3.2.3 %EPT

%EPT was typically higher than reference sites at sites within 1000m of the discharge in March and June

Surveys (Figure 8). A negative linear relationship (decreasing) of moderate strength in March and June and

weak strength for September for %EPT with distance was detected and found to be significant for all

surveys (Figure 9, Table 7). Analysis of differences between surveys and sites for taxonomic richness

detected a significant interaction (Survey X Site) (Table 8). The overall upstream average % EPT of the

reference sites was lower (Site 2: 17. 43%, Site 6: 37.86 %) compared to average of 300m downstream (Site

3) 55.85% indicating that while there are significantly lower richness and abundance downstream at Site 3,

EPT taxa make up a greater proportion of the invertebrate community. Site pairwise tests showed

significant differences between at least one upstream reference site and Site 3 300m downstream in all

seasons. Other sites which had significant differences to reference sites included: Site 4 and Site 5 (1000

and 2000m downstream respectively) in June and Site 7 (3000m downstream) in September (Annex 1).

Table 7: Regression results -%EPT


March 0.479 0.0001

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Ab

un

dan

ce


MarchJuneSeptemberRef - upstreamRef - Tributary



June 0.537756437 0.00003

September 0.2134 0.0201

Figure 8 Mean (±SE) %EPT - Sites within season.

Table 8: PERMANOVA table of results -%EPT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Site 2 Site 6 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 7 Site 8

% E

PT


Source Degrees of

Freedom


perms

Survey 2 4134.4 2067.2 20.777 0.0001 9948

Site 6 19785 3297.5 33.143 0.0001 9948

Survey X Site 12 12127 1010.5 10.157 0.0001 9916

Residual 84 8357.5 99.494

Total 104 44403


Figure 9: Scatter plot regression - %EPT/distance from discharge.

3.2.4 EPT

EPT was typically lower than reference sites at sites within 1000m of the discharge, with levels of EPT

becoming more similar to the reference sites at sites downstream of this point (Figure 10). No linear

relationship was observed from the surveys (Figure 12, Table 9). There was an overall slight increase in EPT

from the March to September survey period. EPT was statistically significant for Survey and Site factors

(Table 10). Pairwise tests showed significant differences between most survey periods with the exception

of June vs September, irrespective of Site (Figure 11). Site pairwise tests showed significant difference

irrespective of Survey between both upstream reference and Site 3 (300m) and Site 4 (1000m). The average

EPT for reference sites (Site 2: 7.13 and Site 6:7.62) was higher compared to Site 3 (3.57) and Site 4 (5).

Table 9: Regression results -EPT

Group R Square Significance F

March 0.003 0.784

June 0.2055 0.0228

September 0.0587 0.2433

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

% E

PT




Figure 10 Mean (±SE) EPT – Sites.

Figure 11 Mean (±SE) EPT – Survey.

Table 10: PERMANOVA table of results - EPT

Source Degrees of

Freedom


perms

Survey 2 74.114 37.057 13.798 0.0001 9957

Site 6 206.9 34.483 12.839 0.0001 9945

Survey X Site 12 52.019 4.3349 1.6141 0.1064 9933

Res 84 225.6 2.6857

Total 104 558.63

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

site 2 Site 6 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 7 Site 8

EPT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


EPT


Figure 12: Scatter plot regression - EPT/distance from discharge.

3.2.5 Multivariate analysis of community data

Investigation of patterns in the assemblage using the centroid data shows three major groups. The

downstream 300m site, the downstream 1000m site and the rest of the downstream sites along with the

reference sites (Figure 13). The assemblage at the downstream 300m site appears to become more similar

to the reference sites and other sites in the more recent surveys. There was an increase of 18% similarity to

upstream reference site and 11% increase to tributary reference site similarity from March to September.

The 1000m site increased by 12% similarity to upstream reference site but had comparable similarity to

tributary reference site from March to September. At the remainder of the sites the major differences

appear to be temporally driven. However, the assemblages at these sites appear to be changing temporally

in a similar manner to the reference sites and potentially have become more similar in later surveys.

The ANOSIM routine detected that the differences between groups (Surveys and Sites) are more dissimilar

then those within groups (Global R = 0.471, sig level = 0.01%). Further investigation of these differences

using the pairwise tests showed that the sites 300m and 1000m downstream were most different to

reference sites. The R values were highest immediately downstream (300m and 1000m) which decreased

downstream (2000m and 3000m) and increased again at Site 8 (6000m) (Annex 1).

The SIMPER analysis showed that higher abundances of taxa Elmidae, Baetidae, Psphenidae, and

Chironominae was driving these differences between Site 3 (300m) and Site 4 (1000m) downstream and

the upstream reference sites. Higher abundances of Hyropsychidae and lower abundances of Orthocladinae

at Site 4 also contributed to differences between Site 4 and Site 2 upstream reference.

The spearman correlations (Figure 14) indicate the assemblage differences overall is driven by EPT taxa

including: mayflies – Baetidae (SIGNAL 5), Leptophlebiidae (SIGNAL 8), Caenidae; stonefly (SIGNAL 4) –

Gripopterygidae (SIGNAL 8); and caddisflies – Hydropsychidae (SIGNAL 6), Philopotamidae (SIGNAL 8),

Hydrobiosidae (SIGNAL 8); as well as riffle beetle Elmidae (SIGNAL 7). Pollution tolerant sub-family

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

EPT




Chironominae also contributed to differences. These families were also generally higher in reference sites

than downstream site, particularly at Site 3 and Site 4.

Figure 13 MDS plot of centroids. Black line denotes group, arrows denote general trajectory through Survey period.

Figure 14: MDS plot of each sample for Site factor. Overlay - Spearman coefficient 0.6.

Transform: Fourth root

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

Site

Ref-up

Ref-trib

Down-300

Down-1000

Down-2000

Down-3000

Down-6000Mar

Mar

Mar

Mar

Mar

Mar

Mar

Jun

Jun

Jun

Jun

Jun

Jun Jun

Sep

Sep

Sep

Sep Sep

Sep

Sep

2D Stress: 0.15

Transform: Fourth root

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

Site

Ref-up

Ref-trib

Down-300

Down-1000

Down-2000

Down-3000

Down-6000

Baetidae

Caenidae

Leptophlebiidae

GripopterygidaeElmidae

chironominae

Hydrobiosidae

Hydropsychidae

Philopotamidae

2D Stress: 0.21


4. Discussion _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The study found continued ecological impact downstream of the mine discharge with significant reductions

in taxonomic richness, abundance, and EPT. However, in comparison to previous studies (Wright et al.

2018) where %EPT ranged 1-10%, against expectations, %EPT actually increased significantly at Site 3 300m

downstream (range 25.1-91.38%). It seems that while other indicators decreased, the EPT taxa although in

small numbers made up larger proportion of the assemblages. Hence this result is likely a mathematical

artefact rather than an indication of improved stream health. This study found a 53% reduction in EPT taxa

at 300m downstream and 32% 1000m downstream. Other studies conducted by Write (2018) found a

reduction in EPT taxa (63%)at 200m downstream in February 2018 and sampling in spring 2017 by Niche

(2018) found a 98% reduction 100m downstream and 38% reduction approximately 500m downstream

(Niche 2018).

Multivariate analysis found similar patterns with the downstream sites (particularly Site 3 and 4) being

impacted, however it showed differences between all sites and surveys. The invertebrates likely to drive

these changes are shown to be predominately pollution sensitive taxa. Of these, mayflies Leptophlebiidae

and Baetidae, were not observed immediately downstream. The lack of Ephemeroptera as well as sharp

reductions in Elmidae were also identified within in 2017 study (Wright 2018, Niche 2018). Leptophlebiidae

are known to be pollution sensitive and thought to be impacted by iron floc and precipitate (iron oxidizing

bacteria) that was observed on all sampling occasions (Niche 2018, Plate 2). Elmidae are similarly sensitive

species and are particularly susceptible to large flow events and pollution that can cause a reduction in

dissolved oxygen e.g. soap and detergents (Elliot 2008).

Plate 2: Iron precipitate downstream of adit


Reasons for benthic invertebrate decline in streams affected by iron flocculants and iron precipitates may

be related to several factors including: reduction in food quality, clogging of the hyporheic and interstitial

spaces, and direct toxic effects of iron deposits adhering to an animal’s body (Barnden 2008). They

effectively act in a similar manner to sedimentation, and affect in-stream habitat by smothering substrate

and clogging interstitial spaces that provide habitat for some species (Gray 1996).

It appears that longitudinally the further downstream the less impact is observed. While impact was

observed at Site 3, Site 4 (although still impaired) shows upward recovery in EPT, taxonomic richness,

abundance, and exhibit assemblages more similar to reference sites. Visual observation also indicate that

iron precipitate is evident at Site 3 and black sediment at Site 4, which is the likely the mechanism for

impact at these sites. Site 5 and Site 7 downstream, although having communities statistically different to

reference sites, generally exhibit similar EPT, taxonomic richness, abundance and no obvious precipitate.

Site 8 however is too far downstream (6000m) for any differences observed to be attributed to the mine

water discharge. It is likely that the Wingecarribee River has near full recovery 1000-2000m downstream.

The aim of this monitoring program was to monitor the ecology of the stream in response to water

treatment measures implemented under EPL 608, and while there were some small increases in EPT,

taxonomic richness and a small increase in similarly to reference sites these are relatively minor and

difficult to relate to changes in water management considering the natural variability of a river.

Furthermore, while there have been improvement in some water quality parameters, the low flow which

occurred for most of the year in the Wingecarribee River (Figure 2) limited any natural dilution of mine

water (Boral 2018). In light of this, the results of this study are unsurprising, however the small changes

observed could possibly be the start of a lagged recovery trajectory. Furthermore the dramatic

improvement to iron concentration is encouraging, as high iron concentration is believed to be the main

mechanism for impacts to macroinvertebrate communities downstream of the mine water discharge. It

likely that there will be a lagged response (in improvement of macroinvertebrate community health) to the

measured reduction in iron as there is a residual impact of precipitate that may require high flows to

disperse it from the benthic substrate and interstitial spaces. Sufficient time is also required for recruitment

of macroinvertebrates, particularly less mobile families such as Elmidae.


5. Conclusion _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In general, impacts to macroinvertebrate communities were observed downstream at Site 3 (300m

downstream) and Site 4 (1000m downstream) in all three survey periods in March, June and September

2018, with no obvious impacts at sites further downstream. These impacts include: reduction in

abundances, taxonomic richness, EPT and change in assemblage structure. There was some small

improvements in EPT, taxonomic richness, and assemblages at these locations in September, however this

is difficult to relate to any improvements to water quality treatment which was complicated by extensive

low flows of the Wingecarribee River. Iron precipitate is the likely mechanism affecting macroinvertebrates,

and was the most improved parameter observed within the mine from the water treatment. With the

longer term implementation of these measures it is likely that improvement will be measurable in future

monitoring.


References _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anderson M.J., Gorley, R.N., and Clarke K.R. (2008). PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER – Guide to software and

Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK.

Barden, A. (2008). Thesis: Ecology of streams affected by iron precipitates and iron flocculants. University of

Canterbury

Boral Cement. (2018). Berrima Colliery Performance Monitoring Program Summary Report - Environment

Protection Licence 608 31 October 2018.

Clarke and Warwick 2001 Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and

Interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK.

Dean, J., Rosalind, M., St Clair, M., and Cartwright, D. (2004) Identification keys to Australian families and

genera of caddis-fly larvae (Trichoptera) Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology.

Elliot, M. (2008) The ecology of Riffle Beetles: Coleoptera Elmidae. Freshwater Reviews. 1, 189-203.

Gooderham, J. and Tsyrlin, E. (2002). The Waterbug Book: A guide to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of

Temperate Australia, CSIRO Publishing.

Gray, N.F. (1996). A substrate classification index for the visual assessment of the impact of acid mine

drainage in lotic systems. Water Research. Vol. 30: 1551-1554.

Hawking J. and Theischinger G. (1999). A guide to the identification of larvae of Australian families and to

the identification of ecology of larvae from NSW.

International Environmental Consultants (2015) Rehabilitation and Final Closure Plan- Review of

Environmental Factors prepared for Boral Cement Limited – Berrima Colliery.

Lenat, D.R. (1988) Water quality assessment using a qualitative collection method for benthic

macroinvertebrates. J.N. Am. Benthological Soc. 7: 222-233.

Niche (2018) Berrima Colliery Aquatic Ecology Monitoring. Prepared for Boral Cement Limited.

Madden, C. (2010) Key to genera of Australian Chironomidae. Museum Victoria Science Reports 12,1-31.

Madden, C. (2011) Draft identification key to families of Diptera larvae of Australian inland waters La Trobe

University.

Quinn, G. and Keough, M. (2002). Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge

University Press.

Smith, B. (1996) Identification keys to the families and genera of bivalve and gastropod molluscs found in

Australian inland waters Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre.

Website - http://www.mdfrc.org.au/bugguide/

Wright, I., Paciuszkiewicz, K., Belmer, N., (2018). Increased water pollution after closure of Australia’s

longest operating underground coal mine: a 13 month study of mine drainage, water chemistry and river

ecology. Water Air Soil Pollution. 229:55

http://www.mdfrc.org.au/bugguide/


Wright, I. and Burgin, S. (2009) Comparison of Sewage and Coal-Mine Wastes on Stream

Macroinvertebrates Within an Otherwise Clean Upland Catchment, Southeastern Australia

Wright, I. A., & Ryan, M. (2016). Impact of mining and industrial pollution on stream macroinvertebrates :

importance of taxonomic resolution, water geochemistry and EPT indices for impact detection.

Hydrobiologia, 772(1), 103-115.


Annex 1 – Pairwise tests _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pairwise tests – Taxonomic richness survey period survey X site

Groups t P(perm) Unique perms P(MC)

March

Ref-up, Down-300 4.2055 0.0072 19 0.0028

Ref-up, Down-

1000

0.71151 0.5404 15 0.4928

Ref-up, Down-

2000

7.4023E-2 1 16 0.9469

Ref-up, Down-

3000

1.1337 0.2715 15 0.2819

Ref-up, Down-

6000

0.93076 0.4993 11 0.3826

Ref-trib, Down-300 9 0.0085 24 0.0001

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

1.3525 0.2333 15 0.2096

Ref-trib, Down-

2000

2.0726 0.0937 18 0.0667

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

0.93048 0.4222 14 0.3797

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

4.3903 0.0082 17 0.0015

June Ref-up, Down-300 3.1235 0.0306 18 0.0146

Ref-up, Down-

1000

2.4405 0.0666 17 0.0432

Ref-up, Down-

2000

0.81228 0.4839 14 0.4331

Ref-up, Down-

3000

0.75048 0.5282 12 0.4746

Ref-up, Down-

6000

1.2495 0.2884 12 0.2552

Ref-trib, Down-300 5.1064 0.0077 26 0.001

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

4.4313 0.0079 24 0.0021

Ref-trib, Down-

2000

1.7408 0.124 14 0.1156

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

3.1688 0.0071 18 0.0126

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

1.6028 0.1953 11 0.1433

September Ref-up, Down-300 4.3818 0.0166 22 0.003

Ref-up, Down-

1000

2.6697 0.0484 18 0.0275

Ref-up, Down-

2000

1.5667 0.1916 15 0.156

Ref-up, Down-

3000

0.10847 1 12 0.9148


Ref-up, Down-

6000

1.0252 0.3849 15 0.3238

Ref-trib, Down-300 3.9673 0.0158 21 0.0046

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

2.2577 0.0963 15 0.0575

Ref-trib, Down-

2000

1.8935 0.1126 16 0.0885

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

0.533 0.7461 9 0.6062

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

0.67612 0.5644 14 0.521

Pairwise tests – Abundance -‘Survey’ factor


Mar, Jun 1.5277 0.1334 9838 0.1351

Mar, Sep 5.1649 0.0001 9822 0.0001

Jun, Sep 4.3951 0.0001 9848 0.0001

Mar, Jun 1.5277 0.1334 9838 0.1351

Pairwise tests – Abundance -‘Site’ factor


Ref-up, Down-300 4.2449 0.0001 9879 0.0004

Ref-up, Down-

1000

2.7673 0.0018 9889 0.0112

Ref-up, Down-

2000

0.85355 0.4362 9862 0.4017

Ref-up, Down-

3000

1.1515 0.2965 9887 0.2533

Ref-up, Down-

6000

0.54626 0.5892 9830 0.5931

Ref-trib, Down-300 6.6038 0.0001 9827 0.0001

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

5.0786 0.0001 9825 0.0002

Ref-trib, Down-

2000

2.9002 0.0064 9847 0.0083

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

3.3633 0.0026 9840 0.0022

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

0.9648 0.3492 9832 0.3418


Pairwise tests – %EPT -‘Site X Survey’ factor


March Ref-up, Down-300 7.0266 0.0083 126 0.0002

Ref-up, Down-

1000

3.6504 0.0153 126 0.0058

Ref-up, Down-

2000

0.36251 0.683 126 0.7202

Ref-up, Down-

3000

1.0567 0.3559 126 0.3278

Ref-up, Down-

6000

2.0146E-2 0.9765 126 0.9854

Ref-trib, Down-300 7.358 0.0083 126 0.0003

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

3.6891 0.0148 126 0.0068

Ref-trib, Down-

2000

0.17066 0.8463 126 0.8755

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

0.96565 0.3968 126 0.3592

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

0.19978 0.8251 126 0.8453

June Ref-up, Down-300 5.5636 0.0077 126 0.0005

Ref-up, Down-

1000

18.988 0.0085 126 0.0001

Ref-up, Down-

2000

6.3386 0.008 126 0.0002

Ref-up, Down-

3000

1.4149 0.1802 126 0.1971

Ref-up, Down-

6000

1.8425 0.1048 126 0.1013

Ref-trib, Down-300 2.4245 0.0481 126 0.0391

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

6.6001 0.0069 126 0.0001

Ref-trib, Down-

2000

0.60321 0.5399 126 0.558

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

1.3268 0.219 126 0.2239

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

2.2649 0.0372 126 0.0501

September Ref-up, Down-300 4.3039 0.0087 126 0.0031

Ref-up, Down-

1000

2.3946 0.0515 126 0.045

Ref-up, Down-

2000

3.652 0.0167 126 0.0066

Ref-up, Down-

3000

5.7237 0.007 126 0.0004

Ref-up, Down-

6000

1.0628 0.3142 126 0.3261

Ref-trib, Down-300 2.5717 0.031 126 0.0329

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

3.1793 0.0233 126 0.013


Ref-trib, Down-

2000

2.4217 0.0401 126 0.041

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

1.9967 0.084 126 0.0771

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

8.6134 0.0088 126 0.0001

Pairwise tests – EPT -‘ Survey’ factor


Mar, Jun 3.2691 0.0019 9791 0.0016

Mar, Sep 5.1441 0.0001 9791 0.0001

Jun, Sep 1.8871 0.0662 9773 0.0635

Pairwise tests – %EPT -‘Site’ factor


Ref-up, Down-300 6.2077 0.0001 9736 0.0001

Ref-up, Down-

1000

3.4506 0.0028 9706 0.002

Ref-up, Down-

2000

0.39223 0.7136 9528 0.6965

Ref-up, Down-

3000

0.89113 0.3796 8892 0.3875

Ref-up, Down-

6000

2.9448 0.0062 9707 0.0076

Ref-trib, Down-300 7.5299 0.0001 9370 0.0001

Ref-trib, Down-

1000

4.5437 0.0001 9722 0.0001

Ref-trib, Down-

2000

0.40932 0.6897 9640 0.6917

Ref-trib, Down-

3000

1.7581 0.0899 9706 0.093

Ref-trib, Down-

6000

4.2784 0.0001 9710 0.0005

Anosim pairwise tests – ‘Survey’ factor

Groups R Statistic Significance Level %

Mar, Jun 0.317 0.01

Mar, Sep 0.641 0.01

Anosim pairwise test ‘Site’ factor


Groups

R Statistic Significance Level

%

Possible

Permutations

Actual

Permutations

Ref-up, Ref-trib 0.748 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-up, Down-300 0.891 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-up, Down-1000 0.969 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-up, Down-2000 0.515 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-up, Down-3000 0.464 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-up, Down-6000 0.739 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-trib, Down-300 0.843 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-trib, Down-1000 0.825 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-trib, Down-2000 0.527 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-trib, Down-3000 0.736 0.01 2000376 9999

Ref-trib, Down-6000 0.937 0.01 2000376 9999

Title of report Type of reports 29

Annex 2 –Simper ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Groups Ref-up & Down-300 Average dissimilarity = 68.30 Group Ref-up Group Down-300 Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Elmidae 1.95 0.13 5.14 3.16 7.53 7.53 Orthocladinae 2.91 1.34 4.43 2.02 6.48 14.01 Baetidae 1.52 0.00 4.41 3.09 6.46 20.47 chironominae 1.98 0.62 4.21 1.68 6.17 26.64 Caenidae 1.39 0.07 3.74 3.19 5.47 32.11 Sphaeriidae 1.31 0.07 3.59 1.75 5.25 37.36 Hydropsychidae 0.69 1.63 3.58 1.38 5.25 42.61 Hydroptilidae 1.07 0.39 3.17 1.34 4.64 47.26 Ecnomidae 1.31 0.60 2.96 1.22 4.33 51.58 Gripopterygidae 0.78 1.43 2.76 1.25 4.04 55.62 Leptophlebiidae 0.92 0.00 2.45 1.77 3.59 59.21 Nematoda 1.05 0.21 2.41 1.20 3.52 62.73 Lumbriculidae 1.70 1.00 2.40 1.25 3.51 66.24 Tanipodinae 0.94 0.63 2.19 1.02 3.21 69.45 Psephenidae 0.62 0.00 1.86 0.94 2.72 72.17 Gomphidae 0.21 0.65 1.81 0.98 2.65 74.82 Empididae 0.07 0.61 1.74 1.03 2.54 77.36 Tipulidae 0.52 0.37 1.70 0.91 2.49 79.85 Philopotamidae 0.66 0.07 1.43 1.00 2.10 81.95 Scirtidae 0.50 0.07 1.22 0.75 1.78 83.74 Calamoceratidae 0.43 0.28 1.22 0.88 1.78 85.52 Leptoceridae 0.49 0.08 1.11 0.78 1.63 87.14 Conoesucidae 0.18 0.35 1.06 0.74 1.56 88.70 Atyidae 0.07 0.23 0.81 0.54 1.19 89.89 Simuliidae 0.30 0.00 0.70 0.57 1.02 90.91 Groups Ref-trib & Down-300 Average dissimilarity = 63.09 Group Ref-trib Group Down-300 Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Elmidae 2.46 0.13 5.38 2.93 8.53 8.53 Baetidae 1.97 0.00 4.49 3.41 7.11 15.64 Psephenidae 1.96 0.00 4.42 3.69 7.00 22.64 chironominae 2.35 0.62 4.08 1.84 6.47 29.11 Gomphidae 1.91 0.65 2.94 1.69 4.65 33.76 Philopotamidae 1.27 0.07 2.82 1.27 4.48 38.24 Corydalidae 1.24 0.07 2.76 1.93 4.37 42.60


Caenidae 1.20 0.07 2.56 1.71 4.05 46.66 Ecnomidae 1.16 0.60 2.25 1.50 3.57 50.23 Gripopterygidae 2.01 1.43 2.24 1.46 3.55 53.78 Hydrobiosidae 0.91 0.07 2.06 1.65 3.27 57.05 Lumbriculidae 1.69 1.00 1.81 1.28 2.87 59.91 Tanipodinae 1.32 0.63 1.76 1.20 2.79 62.70 Atyidae 0.71 0.23 1.69 0.90 2.68 65.38 Simuliidae 0.71 0.00 1.64 1.13 2.60 67.98 Orthocladinae 1.90 1.34 1.62 1.22 2.57 70.56 Leptophlebiidae 0.74 0.00 1.62 1.09 2.57 73.13 Hydropsychidae 1.76 1.63 1.37 1.22 2.17 75.30 Empididae 0.20 0.61 1.32 0.99 2.09 77.39 Tricladida 0.63 0.00 1.31 0.91 2.07 79.46 Calamoceratidae 0.66 0.28 1.22 0.83 1.94 81.40 Gyrinidae 0.66 0.07 1.20 0.59 1.90 83.30 Tipulidae 0.50 0.37 1.16 0.93 1.84 85.13 Leptoceridae 0.45 0.08 1.02 0.75 1.62 86.76 Sphaeriidae 0.39 0.07 0.94 0.72 1.48 88.24 Hydroptilidae 0.35 0.39 0.85 0.72 1.35 89.59 Conoesucidae 0.07 0.35 0.77 0.72 1.22 90.81 Groups Ref-up & Down-1000

Average dissimilarity = 60.62 Group Ref-up Group Down-1000 Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Hydropsychidae 0.69 2.28 4.04 1.55 6.66 6.66 Orthocladinae 2.91 1.52 3.39 1.40 5.58 12.24 Baetidae 1.52 0.13 3.34 2.27 5.51 17.75 Elmidae 1.95 0.54 3.24 1.73 5.35 23.10 Caenidae 1.39 0.00 3.20 5.71 5.28 28.37 chironominae 1.98 0.78 2.94 1.55 4.86 33.23 Ecnomidae 1.31 0.59 2.42 1.25 3.99 37.21 Hydroptilidae 1.07 0.13 2.36 1.52 3.89 41.10 Corydalidae 0.07 0.93 2.15 1.24 3.55 44.66 Tanipodinae 0.94 0.84 2.09 0.90 3.45 48.11 Lumbriculidae 1.70 1.40 2.02 1.01 3.33 51.44 Leptophlebiidae 0.92 0.15 1.98 1.53 3.27 54.71 Sphaeriidae 1.31 0.64 1.96 1.20 3.24 57.95 Philopotamidae 0.66 1.24 1.95 1.01 3.22 61.17 Nematoda 1.05 0.22 1.91 1.21 3.15 64.32 Gripopterygidae 0.78 1.37 1.83 1.22 3.02 67.34 Gomphidae 0.21 0.81 1.66 1.14 2.75 70.09 Empididae 0.07 0.77 1.60 1.23 2.65 72.74 Calamoceratidae 0.43 0.60 1.56 1.17 2.58 75.31 Tipulidae 0.52 0.53 1.42 1.06 2.34 77.65 Psephenidae 0.62 0.00 1.39 0.99 2.29 79.94


Atyidae 0.07 0.60 1.38 0.69 2.27 82.21 Leptoceridae 0.49 0.33 1.31 0.99 2.15 84.37 Scirtidae 0.50 0.07 1.19 0.81 1.97 86.33 Conoesucidae 0.18 0.44 1.12 0.80 1.84 88.18 Simuliidae 0.30 0.62 0.91 0.68 1.50 89.67 Tetrastemmatidae 0.29 0.20 0.68 0.66 1.13 90.80 Groups Ref-trib & Down-1000 Average dissimilarity = 53.26 Group Ref-trib Group Down-1000 Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Psephenidae 1.96 0.00 3.77 3.39 7.08 7.08 Elmidae 2.46 0.54 3.74 2.31 7.02 14.10 Baetidae 1.97 0.13 3.55 2.97 6.66 20.76 chironominae 2.35 0.78 3.06 1.87 5.74 26.50 Caenidae 1.20 0.00 2.36 1.73 4.43 30.93 Gomphidae 1.91 0.81 2.20 1.48 4.13 35.07 Philopotamidae 1.27 1.24 1.88 1.35 3.54 38.60 Tanipodinae 1.32 0.84 1.85 1.28 3.47 42.07 Gripopterygidae 2.01 1.37 1.84 1.49 3.46 45.53 Hydrobiosidae 0.91 0.16 1.62 1.47 3.04 48.57 Ecnomidae 1.16 0.59 1.57 1.18 2.95 51.52 Hydropsychidae 1.76 2.28 1.53 1.35 2.87 54.38 Simuliidae 0.71 0.62 1.48 1.31 2.78 57.17 Calamoceratidae 0.66 0.60 1.44 1.12 2.71 59.87 Leptoceridae 0.45 0.33 1.41 1.18 2.66 62.53 Corydalidae 1.24 0.93 1.41 1.09 2.65 65.18 Leptophlebiidae 0.74 0.15 1.41 1.04 2.64 67.82 Lumbriculidae 1.69 1.40 1.38 1.10 2.59 70.41 Orthocladinae 1.90 1.52 1.33 1.06 2.49 72.90 Sphaeriidae 0.39 0.64 1.28 1.06 2.41 75.31 Empididae 0.20 0.77 1.22 1.06 2.30 77.61 Tricladida 0.63 0.00 1.15 0.90 2.16 79.77 Tipulidae 0.50 0.53 1.15 1.13 2.15 81.92 Atyidae 0.71 0.60 1.05 0.76 1.97 83.89 Gyrinidae 0.66 0.21 0.92 0.61 1.73 85.61 Conoesucidae 0.07 0.44 0.88 0.82 1.65 87.26 Hydroptilidae 0.35 0.13 0.67 0.73 1.25 88.52 Nematoda 0.21 0.22 0.65 0.68 1.22 89.74 Tetrastemmatidae 0.13 0.20 0.60 0.69 1.13 90.87


Annex 3 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

berrima colliery environmental performance monitoring ... · berrima colliery environmental...

Documents